↓ Skip to main content

Barriers and Strategies to Participation in Tissue Research Among African-American Men

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cancer Education, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Barriers and Strategies to Participation in Tissue Research Among African-American Men
Published in
Journal of Cancer Education, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13187-015-0905-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bettina F. Drake, Danielle Boyd, Kimberly Carter, Sarah Gehlert, Vetta Sanders Thompson

Abstract

Before the burgeoning field of biospecimen collection can advance prevention and treatment methods, researchers must access diverse molecular data samples. However, minorities, especially African-American men, remain reticent to join these studies. This study, using theory-based approaches, investigated African-American men's barriers to participating in biorepository research. Fourteen focus groups were conducted among 70 African-American men (ages 40 to 80). The groups were stratified by prostate cancer history and educational attainment background. Participants identified perceived factors that promoted or hindered study participation when questioned about their knowledge and attitudes about biospecimen research. Ninety-four percent of participants indicated never participating in a study that collected biological samples. Barriers to their participation included lack of knowledge and understanding regarding biospecimen research practices and uses. In addition, they extensively cited a prevalent mistrust of the medical community and discomfort with study recruitment practices. African-American males were more willing to participate in biorepository studies with physician endorsement or if they understood that participation could benefit future generations. Men also wanted more recruitment and advertising done in familiar places.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Professor 3 12%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 6 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Computer Science 1 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 13 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 July 2016.
All research outputs
#14,175,104
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Education
#501
of 1,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,268
of 267,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Education
#9
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,134 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.